JUDGMENT

P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.:–

I.A. 01 of 2021 for condonation of delay in filing L.P.A. for about one year and 236 days reveals that appellant-Bank is not so serious in contesting the matter. However, for the reasons stated in the application and affidavit delay of about one year and 236 days is condoned.

2. In the instant L.P.A., appellant-Bank has questioned the validity of the order of the learned single Judge dated 01.07.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4156 of 2018.

3. Respondent-Akhileshwari Devi is the legal heirs of the deceased employee, late Rama Nand Prasad. The deceased, Rama Nand Prasad while working in the Ministry of Mines, Government of India attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2001. He died on 01.02.2005. In this background, respondent- Akhileshwari Devi, wife of deceased- Rama Nand Prasad was entitled to family pension. The pension and family pension payment is arranged by the respective Government through the nationalized Bank. In the present case pension payment was made to the deceased- Rama Nand Prasad was through the State Bank of India of its Branch, Sahajitpur Branch. The appellant-Bank proceeded to remit pension of the deceased- Rama Nand Prasad as if he was alive, even after 01.02.2005 the date on which he died and keep on remitting pension amount in his account. On 01.02.2018, appellant-Bank noticed that despite the fact that deceased- Rama Nand Prasad died on 01.02.2005 full pension is being remitted in favour of deceases Rama Nand Prasad from 01.02.2005 to 01.02.2018.

4. In this background, the Bank proceeded to order for recovery of excess payment remitted in the deceased employee account and further proceeded to order recovery from wife of the deceased- Rama Nand Prasad, namely, Akhileshwari Devi. The excess amount stated to have been paid to the deceased- Rama Nand Prasad is a sum of Rs. 7,65,207/-. Thus an order has been passed in respect of recovery of the aforesaid amount on monthly installment @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Bank, respondent Akhileshwari Devi questioned the action of the appellant-Bank in C.W.J.C. No. 4156 of 2018. The learned single Judge allowed the petition with reference to various decisions of the Apex Court including a decision rendered in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 475 and held that excess payment made in favour of the deceased- Rama Nand Prasad cannot be recovered from his wife, respondent- Akhileshwari Devi.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned single Judge dated 01.07.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4156 of 2018, appellant-Bank presented this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that Writ Court has no jurisdiction since respondent’s husband, deceased- Rama Nand Prasad was a Central Government employee, therefore, she has to approach to the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 in respect of questioning the recovery action by the appellant-Bank. The same has not been considered by the learned single Judge.

7. It is further submitted that due to error committed by the Bank officials in not noticing that the deceased- Rama Nand Prasad died on 01.02.2005, it is only a bonafide mistake in not noticing that the deceased employee died on 01.02.2005 and proceeded to remit full pension in his account from 01.02.2005 to 01.02.2018. Therefore, it is only a sheer mistake which could be rectified by the appellant-Bank and ordered for recovery of excess payment made in favour of Rama Nand Prasad from his wife Akhileshwari Devi-Respondent. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellant has cited following decisions:—

(i) High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in 2016(4) PLJR (SC) 78.

(ii) Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttrakhand and Others reported in 2012(8) SCC 417

(iii) Union of India Vs. Sri Bij